I'm kind of over the state of console gaming.

[Dave Gray]

I have been annoyed with gaming lately, specifically how online gaming for consoles hasn't kept up with the times.  As I'm older, I don't really have the same ability to commit to certain types of games.  But it doesn't mean I have no interest.  Here's my issue....

Text messages on a cell phone used to be $.10 a piece.  (You could pre-buy text packages, also.)  That was always dumb, but all the carriers did it.  It uses way less data than a call, but since the consumer didn't know any better, people just paid it.  Apple released iMessage, which was free and it pretty much instantly killed the texting model.

There are other technologies like video on demand that we paid for also, whereas now, that's just how stuff works.

Which brings me to online gaming.  I didn't really mind paying for a yearly subscription to XBOX Live 20 years ago.  I didn't know any better, but also, it was novel.  It was new, there were new systems and voice chat integration and all this other stuff that felt like a value add.  Also, the culture of gaming wasn't online.  Online modes were often an add-on to the game experience that they were selling you.

But that's not the world we live in anymore.  Online gaming is synonymous with gaming.   In fact, you're hard pressed to find a game that doesn't feature some kind of online experience.  You can still play games online for free, but the games have to be free.  If I pay for a game, then I have to pay to take it online.  How backwards is that?  So, when I was in my 20s and I played a ton of games with a bunch of different friends, maybe I didn't notice.  But I'm older and I play pretty much one thing.  I'd like to expand, but I can't even play the games I already own unless I pay a subscription.

But the kicker is that THIS IS FREE ON PC AND ALWAYS HAS BEEN.

I used to be a huge defender of console gaming, frankly, because PCs were a pain in the ass.  They were expensive and you always had to upgrade and mess with settings and video cards and memory and codecs and security codes.  Consoles just worked the same out of the box.  But now, those lines are blurred at worst, and at best, there are PC "consoles" that act just like the branded counterparts.

So, I'm kinda over it.

I appreciate the $15 Netflix model for things like Gamepass or Playstation Plus, but that's not a good fit for me; I just don't play enough volume to justify it. 

Halo: Master Chief Collection is on sale for $10 and I'd like to buy it and finish playing it.  But I have to pay $60 a year to do it the way I want.

I had another game called It Takes Two, which is an entire game built around co-op and the thing was unplayable.

So, frustrating and I'm kind of over it.  It's an outdated model; these consoles need to step up and stop fleecing people for something that's free from their competition.

[Pappy13]

There's no way to play games on your console without a subscription? Which console do you own? I'll admit that I'm a PC gamer and I don't really mess around on my console all that much but I do own an Xbox Series S and I don't have a subscription and I seem to be able to get games for it without paying a yearly subscription. Maybe not everything I want, but there's a decent selection it seems.

The trend towards online gaming I'll give you that it's hard to find a game that doesn't require you to be online these days, but that problem would seem to exist for the PC as well as the console, so I'm a little confused by your post and seemingly making this a console issue rather than just a gaming issue.

Halo: Master Chief Collection is on sale for $10 and I'd like to buy it and finish playing it. But I have to pay $60 a year to do it the way I want.

What is the 60$ subscription for? There's no other way to get the collection even if you have to pay a bit more? Maybe I just need a better understanding as I'm not really a console player.

[Dave Gray]

There's no way to play games on your console without a subscription? Which console do you own?

You can play your games.

But you can't play them online.  I don't just mean competitive multiplayer; I'm talking about co-op or any kind of shared experience, really.

I am on an XBOX Series X, but the same is true for the Playstation and Nintendo environments.

I am just not the kind of guy who is playing solitary video games at this point.  The purpose of playing is communal and it's how I keep in touch with friends.  So, co-operative games or MMO-type environments is what gaming is to me now.

My kids play Animal Crossing and Minecraft -- and sure, you can play it by yourself, but the whole point is to share the experience with others, build together, work together.  All of that requires a subscription to their online platforms.  Whereas, these same experiences on PC are no additional charge.

[Dave Gray]

"Halo: Master Chief Collection is on sale for $10 and I'd like to buy it and finish playing it. But I have to pay $60 a year to do it the way I want." What is the 60$ subscription for? There's no other way to get the collection even if you have to pay a bit more? Maybe I just need a better understanding as I'm not really a console player.

I can buy the game itself for $10 which allows me to play the levels on my own.

But that's like 1/3 of the game (and I'd argue not even, because this particular Halo is open-world with the intention of playing with a group.  But I cannot have my friends hop on and play the levels together, as they're designed.

It's like if you bought a chess-app for $10 but it only let you play against the computer.  To play against other people who also have that same chess game, you have to subscribe to their online platform, which costs $60 per year (or more if you pay month-to-month).

[Pappy13]

I can buy the game itself for $10 which allows me to play the levels on my own.

But that's like 1/3 of the game (and I'd argue not even, because this particular Halo is open-world with the intention of playing with a group.  But I cannot have my friends hop on and play the levels together, as they're designed.

It's like if you bought a chess-app for $10 but it only let you play against the computer.  To play against other people who also have that same chess game, you have to subscribe to their online platform, which costs $60 per year (or more if you pay month-to-month).

Gotcha, but then I don't agree with you that it's not worth paying a subscription for that functionality. There's a cost associated with keeping those game servers up and running that the developers incur. Now I'm not saying they couldn't pay to keep those servers up and running without a player subscription model but that would be losing money if there was absolutely no cost to players. Some cost is justified for online services in my opinion. I guess it comes down to how much is warranted and you're probably right that $60 for you is not warranted, but I don't really know how the developers are going to be able to make this disctinction for every single player. It becomes a nightmare to try to have a bunch of different subscription rates to cater to every different type of playstyle. You either play offline or you pay more to play online.

[Dave Gray]

Gotcha, but then I don't agree with you that it's not worth paying a subscription for that functionality. There's a cost associated with keeping those game servers up and running that the developers incur. Now I'm not saying they couldn't pay to keep those servers up and running without a player subscription model but that would be losing money if there was absolutely no cost to players. Some cost is justified for online services in my opinion. I guess it comes down to how much is warranted and you're probably right that $60 for you is not warranted, but I don't really know how the developers are going to be able to make this disctinction for every single player. It becomes a nightmare to try to have a bunch of different subscription rates to cater to every different type of playstyle. You either play offline or you pay more to play online.

If what you're saying is true, why are free games free to play online?
And if what you're saying is true, why are the exact same PC games free to play online?  And many of the games are cross-platform, so the XBOX people are playing with PC people and some are paying and some aren't.

[Pappy13]

And if what you're saying is true, why are the exact same PC games free to play online?  And many of the games are cross-platform, so the XBOX people are playing with PC people and some are paying and some aren't.

I think it depends a lot on the service. I don't really understand enough of the details to give you an educated answer. It's possible that Microsoft and Sony are just charging players a subscription for their online services because they can whereas Valve (Steam) for example may not be. Valve isn't the only way to play online games on a PC though, for example there's Gamepass which does require a subscription and other online gaming services may require some type of subscription as well so maybe it's a little unfair to compare Valve, Microsoft and Sony strictly and say that no online PC games require a fee but consoles do, it's not quite that straight forward. I'm sure some of it has to do with how much each service gets for the games it sells for example. Microsoft, Sony and Valve all get a certain percentage of the cost when you purchase a game through their service and I think Valve is one of the ones who gets more and it's possible that Valve just sees not charging any additional subscription fees to the player as a competitive advantage for their service over consoles and recupes that through the amount it charges for developers to sell their games through their service? Or perhaps Microsoft and Sony provide some type of online services for developers so there's less overhead for them on consoles as opposed to on a PC that Valve doesn't provide so Microsoft and Sony pass that onto the players? I really don't know the answers to these questions, but I think there's a lot more to take into consideration than just whether or not there's a subscription cost for the player. It's complicated.

[Pappy13]

For shits and giggles I posed this question to Microsoft Copilot (AI) and got following response. It's not lost on me that this is Microsoft's AI, but still seems like a fairly reasonable explanation.

Microsoft and Sony charge fees for their online services, such as Xbox Live and PlayStation Network, while Valve does not. Here’s why:

Historical Context:

Microsoft introduced Xbox Live with the original Xbox in the early 2000s, and they were effectively the only console platform offering online multiplayer at the time.

Sony followed suit with PlayStation Network on the PS3, and Nintendo eventually joined with a basic online capability on the Switch.

PC gaming, on the other hand, had online multiplayer for years, but it was often more complex and expensive due to hardware requirements and technical know-how.

Market Dynamics:

Microsoft’s successful subscription model set a precedent for console online gaming fees.
Sony adopted a similar approach with the PS4, and Nintendo also started charging for online services.

Valve’s Steam became the dominant PC games store, and they never imposed a subscription fee. Charging a fee on PC would likely hinder market share, given Valve’s strong position.

Server Costs:

Consoles charge for online play even though they don’t host game servers themselves. Publishers typically handle game servers, and Sony/Microsoft act as middlemen. The fees cover services like matchmaking, chat, and maintaining the online infrastructure.

In summary, it’s a combination of historical context, market dynamics, and the specific services provided that led to these different approaches. PC gaming’s lack of a similar fee is largely due to Valve’s dominance and the absence of a successful subscription model in that space.

[Dave Gray]

You're kind of answering a question that isn't being asked.

If you answering why they charge, I don't really give a shit why.  It's just that they DO.
Their direct competition does not.  In the past, these two products were kinda far apart, but now, since they are now, why should I, as the consumer, give a shit why these companies are charging and these others are not.  It's my job to support the one that fits my needs the best.

[Pappy13]

You're kind of answering a question that isn't being asked.

If you answering why they charge, I don't really give a shit why.  It's just that they DO.
Their direct competition does not.  In the past, these two products were kinda far apart, but now, since they are now, why should I, as the consumer, give a shit why these companies are charging and these others are not.  It's my job to support the one that fits my needs the best.

But the console vs PC debate really hasn't changed much in the last 20 years, it's your gaming habits that have changed which has shifted your perspective on it in my humble opinion.

[Spider-Dan]

Pappy13, how much do you know about the Steam Deck and what it does?

[Fau Teixeira]

I was just gonna suggest Dave just look into a Steam Deck and just slice right through this gordian's knot

[Pappy13]

Pappy13, how much do you know about the Steam Deck and what it does?

I've heard of it and I'm a little familiar with it but I've never used one. I'll be honest when it was first mentioned by Dave, I was thinking of the Steam box and not the Steam Deck which is pretty different. My son has a Steam Box and I'm not a big fan, but I'm not really a big fan of consoles in general. I can see someone who wants the mobility of the Steam Deck to have one, but not sure that really fits for Dave and his gaming habits.

[Spider-Dan]

The Steam Deck (released early 2022) is a handheld gaming console that runs a custom version of Linux (SteamOS) which has impressively high compatibility with Windows games.  The screen is 1280x800, and the hardware is fast enough to run AAA games with reasonable settings at that resolution.  It starts at $399 and goes up to $649 (more storage, OLED screen)

While there are other PC handhelds on the market with better hardware specs that run Windows natively (e.g. ASUS ROG Ally), it's notable that Steam Deck is consistently rated to have a better user experience than them (despite not running Windows) because Valve has worked very hard on user interface.  The experience can be pretty rough when trying to install and run older Steam games - say, pre-2020 - but for newer stuff, Valve has done a great job providing a console-ized experience for the buy/install/play cycle.